incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject unicameral solution
Date Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:19:27 GMT

Have been thinking along the same lines - although I wasn't able to 
capture the essence as nicely as Andrew :-).

To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...

1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.

This would bring us to a unicameral solution while maintaining 
appropriate checks and balances through the diligence of the Incubator.

Stephen.


Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

>So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again).  The incubator AFAICT
>replicated a tricameral vote.  To release you must have:
>
>1. A PMC vote to accept it
>2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
>3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
>
>The only country that ever invested significantly in such a system was
>Poland (other examples exist but the other bodies are subservient and
>generally advise more than consent).  This was *one* of the times it was
>wiped off the map. 
>
>I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second
>most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose
>#3 would be the least vested group.
>
>The point?  None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
>does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
>funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
>
>-Andy
>  
>

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message